Resume a run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only mark it destructive and open-world; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that done items are kept, failed items retried, an item interrupted after commit becomes review 'never replayed blindly', and that host runs are refused 'without altering their journal'. These are exactly the safety/idempotency details an agent needs before invoking a destructive resume.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and item semantics before the routing guidance. Slightly dense, but every clause carries information an agent needs; little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description points to the return shape ('same bounded result as run_start'), and it covers refusal cases and journal safety. The only real omission is any definition of the runId input, which is minor for a one-parameter resume tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single runId parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies the target is 'an existing direct run' but never defines the runId itself (id format, source, or that it must match a direct rather than host run). Adequate but leaves a gap it should have closed at this coverage level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finishes an existing direct run') and immediately distinguishes it from the host-run path handled by host_next. The item-level outcomes (done kept, failed retried, interrupted-after-commit to review) make the tool's contract unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit prerequisites ('Read driver in run_report or run_list first'), an explicit exclusion ('host runs require host_next and are refused here'), and a triggering condition ('Use after step_repair or when the user asks to resume'). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.